Objectionism (Was: Change proposal for ISSUE-85)

Henri Sivonen, Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:22:29 +0300:
> On Jun 16, 2010, at 08:46, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> Indeed. I think <a role=button> should be reported to accessibility 
> APIs as a button.
> 
> This is tied to the stylability of <a>. If <a> can be styled to look 
> like a button, there should be a mechanism for reporting it as a 
> button via AT, too.
> 
> Furthermore, if styling it as a button is not a machine-checkable 
> conformance error, reporting it to AT as a button should not be a 
> machine-checkable conformance error, either, because flagging the AT 
> side but not the visual side as conforming would likely more often 
> have a negative effect than have the positive effect of authors 
> replacing <a> with <button> or <input type=button>. The particular 
> negative effects I can foresee are either making the Web application 
> less accessible (by omitting role altogether) or making things more 
> complex by adding role via JS.
> 
> On the other hand, I think 
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9871 should be 
> WONTFIXed unless addEventListener is made not to have an effect on 
> <a>, but doing that would probably Break the Web.
> 
> To cast the above as objections: I object to Hixie's no-change 
> proposal to ISSUE 85 and I object to fixing bugs 9871 and 9872.

I am positive towards *this* kind of "objectionism" (though "I 
disagree" would have been just as good to say as "I object"). It 
doesn't feel like it is against your nature either ... It isn't a 
threat about something you're gonna do *if* ... It is a here and now 
that help me understand what your position is and thus helps me to 
understand and pay attention to the rest of the message.
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2010 09:27:46 UTC